Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ex Hellraiser
301

Ex Hellraiser 301

I was going to make this topic a few days ago, because I hadn't seen an aircraft topic, it IS a vehicle topic anyway...

I am more into regular, s mall, civilian craft. I guess I have a connection with Cessnas because I have actually had the opportunity to fly one. I was in Civil Air Patrol (Air Force auxillary) for a little over a year, and at one point they had Orientation flight, which didn't require a license, and I was only 14, so I couldn't ever GET my license then.

OT:

Cessna 182, the EXACT plane I flew, photobucket happened to have a pic of it

Cessna 337 Skymaster

Icon A5, featured in Microsoft Flight (which I was excited about)

Vans RV-6, kit plane. (this may be my first craft if I ever get my license

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Outcast
1,427

Outcast 1,427

its pretty awesome you got to fly the cessna, i've been meaning to take flying lessons myself but its just too much of a hassle to get to the airfield from central london

i've satisfied my appetite by going to fly on those B737 simulators, not exactly crazy realistic but its better than playing flight simulator at home. besides, getting to sit in the captain's seat feels pretty darn cool

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

SmC12
9

SmC12 9

Damn Cessna's are awesome. Real simple and efficient. Definately my favorite single-prop manufacturer. My goal is to accquire some form of license when I'm older and get a good 'ol C172S. I used to be obsessed with aviation and wanted to be a pilot, I still do to some extent. I think being an aviation enthusiest is something your born with, the excitement of flying just never goes away for me.

I favour Boeing over Airbus because personally I just love the look of a Boeing aircraft. The whole design is clean and modern, the technology great but still traditional with alot of pilot input. The new 747-8i/f just looks incredible, one of the best looking aircraft I've seen. Obviously taking alot of visuals from the 787, which I do like but I still prefer the B777ER for twin engine long-haul.

I find airbus planes to be really bulky and more on saving money and being economical than making a good looking aircraft. The A380 for example is absolutely amazing, but looks horrible to me (it's not about looks I know, I do like the old noisy, bulky, polluting aircraft too. MD-11's for example). Airbus has a perfectly fine strategy, just something about them I don't like. On the other hand they have some amazing flight technology, and the computer sytems are alot more advanced, but my problem is that they are too focused on computers to handle the aircraft. From a pilot's perspective, I think I would be a lot more comfortable in the cockpit of a Boeing aircraft, because I find the balance between computerized functions and pilot input to be perfect, it's like it encourages the pilot to do the flying. In an airbus everything is just set up to run on it's own.

Of course that's just my opinion, and my experience with either aircraft only goes as far as FSX.

Edited March 9, 2012 by SmC12

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Outcast
1,427

Outcast 1,427

Most modern aircraft are fly-by-wire nowadays, including Boeing. The major difference between Boeing and Airbus fly-by-wire systems is that Airbus doesnt allow the pilot to push the aircraft past its safe operating limits whereas Boeing pilots can. Nonetheless fly-by-wire is, on paper, significantly safer than previous mechanical/hydraulic systems. As a frequent flyer I've flown on my fair share of 737s, 747s, 757s, 767s, 777s (not lucky enough to try the new 787 yet) and A318/19/20s, A330s, A340s (my favourite commercial aircraft, how many single deck 4 engine aircraft are there?!?! very few!) and A380s. I dont have a preference over Boeing or Airbus but if I were a pilot I would agree that I would rather fly a Boeing than an Airbus as I find that the sidestick too weird to get past but it does make sense as a lot of the pilots job is to just monitor the instrument readings in front of them while at cruising altitude.

The 777 is a nice plane but next to the A340 it just looks a bit overweight as the fuselage is a bit fatter than the A340, the A340 looks like a long sleek 4 engined cheetah to Boeing's twin engined fat roll i am sad that A340 production has ended and the replacement for it being the A350 which looks much more similar to the 777 due to it being twin engined. I sort of resent the fact that engines have become so powerful and reliable that aircraft no longer have to have a minimum of 3 engines for over-water flights ...

Edited March 9, 2012 by Outcast

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

SmC12
9

SmC12 9

Yeah I'm aware of Boeing having fly-by-wire on their aircraft too. I don't think there's anything wrong with Airbus technology, and there's no doubt computerised systems are very safe, and allow things that just wouldn't be possible otherwise. I mean just look at the Eurofighter. However my idea of flying has always been about the pilot having a major role throughout the entire flight. You could program the flightplan details into the airbus computers and it would do everything with no problem. Possible on the lastest Boeing's too though. If I remember correctly autothrottle and altitude settings engage automatically before even leaving the runway. Not a bad thing, but just think how much further it could go in the future. I don't think Boeing is superior or anything. It's just my preference.

A340 was a great plane, actually one of the airbuses which I liked the look of. Definately sad to see it go. I guess the 757 would be my equivilent long/medium-haul from boeing. Although I still think a "fat roll" 777 equipped with Trent 800's is better than double the engine number.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Outcast
1,427

Outcast 1,427

of course i wasn't insulting or belittling your preference for Boeings, I just happen to have a preference for Airbus theres no doubt that modern engines have a lot more power and are much more reliable than their predecessors but theres just something about 4 engines which makes you think POWERRRR!!!!!! of all Boeing aircraft, the 757 is my favourite in terms of looks. I prefer a long slim fuselage over something like 737 or A380 fuselage which looks pretty damn thick in comparison. In regards to the pilots role, i completely agree with you. I had always thought of the pilot as having major inputs from start to finish as well.

Airbus cockpit layout is just awkward because the control column is replaced by a sidestick. Also there doesnt seem to be any sort of stickshaker stall warning system on a sidestick and the only stall warnings seem to be only audio/visual another thing is if i were a pilot i dont think i'd be too confident flying such a large aircraft with a sidestick, its sort of gives me the feeling of riding a bull with a shoelace

Edited March 9, 2012 by Outcast

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Ex Hellraiser
301

Ex Hellraiser 301

I'm not sure what category this would best fit, but if you haven't seen it yet, Microsoft has released MS Flight, which is pretty fun. I have yet to encounter anyone who has surpassed my height record of 39,061ft. It's free, but the P51 isn't, sadly. But it is a full, FULL scale iteration of Hawaii. I need a challenger for my record.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

SmC12
9

SmC12 9

This is about a game, but more relevant for me to state my opinon here.

Firstly, is it supposed to be a demo? I hope it is, cause that's all it looks like to me.

I must say I'm a huge fan of the MS Flight Sim series, but MS Flight seems to be a huge disappointment. Okay, it's free to start with, great. But they're charging for everything else. For new planes, new areas, new airports, new missions. With FSX, straight out of the box you had the entire world, over 50,000 airports and around 30 quality aircraft, and you had AI, both aircraft, cars, ships, heck even wildlife. You also had a full weather system, and different scenry according to region, and of course fully functional (but quite unrealistic) ATC. Now I haven't checked the weather and scenery, but from what I've heard the autogen is still as bad as in previous games, except now ground objects have their own shadow and lighting etc. But really with MS Flight you have a few planes, one area, and absolutely nothing else - there isn't even any AI! No doubt they'll charge for that too.

It's graphically better and apparently much smoother in gameplay, and flight dynamics more accurate, but in comparison to previous games it's ridiculous. I know it's a different development team, but according to their FAQ it's a game for both beginners and experts alike - and is just the same as the previous simulator games. I think they've really dummed down the whole thing to appeal more to n00bs. The simulator aspect is gone in my opinion. If they release the full product with everything instead of just an empty world and a few aircraft, and charge for everything else, I may consider changing my view on it. They have mentioned nothing of this being a trial or demo, so that's what worries me. They really expect everyone to have to pay to unlock the full experience?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem 18,577

sivispacem 18,577

I've got rather a soft spot for the SEPECAT Jaguar, and seen as it's the anniversary week for the Falklands conflict I thought it would be worthwhile mentioning it. For one, any aircraft that requires reheat to take off is okay in my book, and secondly it's worth remembering these aircraft were almost used in lieu of the Vulcan on the Black Buck missions to strike the Argentinian mainland from the UK

Plus overwing-mounted AAMs are damn awesome.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Outcast
1,427

Outcast 1,427

Its sad that the UK has lost its lead in the aviation industry, if only the first viable commercial jet aircraft was not the De Havilland Comet maybe the British aviation industry would still be at the top.

Looking at planes like the Vulcan and even the Nimrod gives you an idea of what sort of planes could've been if the Comet was a success.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Outcast
1,427

Outcast 1,427

It is a shame that the defence review scrapped the upcoming Nimrod, I absolutely hate the proposed alternatives none of which look half as good. Something about the Nimrod gives it a certain air of "British-ness" to it that I love.

I agree that BAE Systems are working on some pretty interesting stuff but I was thinking more about Avro Aircraft, Hawker Siddeley, De Havilland, BAC etc. All the big aircraft manufacturers have just been merged and acquired and merged into hell and back again leaving only a handful of corporate entities which have done little to raise Britain's profile in the aviation industry. The closest thing we have is Airbus and tbh I don't like how it's with the French. I've always had something against the French after they pushed for retiring the Concorde fleet. Bastards.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lurch
763

Lurch 763

I've always had something against the French after they pushed for retiring the Concorde fleet. Bastards.

f*ckin frenchies. Sure would be neet to see another Mach 2 capable commercial jet in the near future, but much more mass-produced than the Concord ever was. Concord was such a technical marvel of its time.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

sivispacem 18,577

sivispacem 18,577

It is a shame that the defence review scrapped the upcoming Nimrod, I absolutely hate the proposed alternatives none of which look half as good. Something about the Nimrod gives it a certain air of "British-ness" to it that I love.

I agree that BAE Systems are working on some pretty interesting stuff but I was thinking more about Avro Aircraft, Hawker Siddeley, De Havilland, BAC etc. All the big aircraft manufacturers have just been merged and acquired and merged into hell and back again leaving only a handful of corporate entities which have done little to raise Britain's profile in the aviation industry. The closest thing we have is Airbus and tbh I don't like how it's with the French. I've always had something against the French after they pushed for retiring the Concorde fleet. Bastards.

Well BAE Systems are either the largest or second largest aerospace and defence corporation in the world, depending on how you classify it (if you look solely at military sales, then BAE systems are far and away the largest, but Lockheed Martin are larger in revenue terms across the board). BAE is largely made up of all the older British corporations. As for the scrapping of the Nimrod, the whole program was catastrophically mismanaged and changes that had to be made in the designs of the aircraft wing tanks in the wake of a mid-air explosion a few years back reduced the fuel capacity quite significantly. We do still have some aircraft performing a roughly similar role, though- the Sentinel- but they were due to be retired at the end of the Afghan conflict, leaving us with no airborne electronic reconnaissance and command and control capability at all. Thankfully, the government saw sense after they played a pivotal role in Libya and we're keeping them now.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Pico
82

Pico 82

I'm considering working on a customer RC plane. I want to do a jet based plane, so it'll be using an EDF motor (jet style fan configuration with an electric motor). If you could have an remote controlled plane, which one would you go with?